Election 2016

Rand Paul Can Run for President and Senate—If He Pays $250,000

Kentucky GOP switches from a primary to a caucus

|

Rand Paul
Gage Skidmore

The Kentucky Republican Party has voted to hold a caucus instead of a primary, which will allow Sen. Rand Paul to get around a state law so that he can run for president and re-election to the Senate at the same time.

Paul announced the GOP's decision on his Facebook page on Saturday:

I applaud the Republican Party of Kentucky on their decision to hold a caucus in the upcoming Republican presidential cycle. The people of Kentucky deserve a voice as the GOP chooses their next nominee, and holding a caucus will ensure that Kentucky is relevant and participates early in the process. I am also grateful for the Republican Party's trust in me, allowing me to run for re-election to the U.S. Senate and seek the nomination for the Presidency of the United States!

There's just one catch: Paul must donate $250,000 to the state GOP to help defray the cost of switching to a caucus. He has until September 18th to make the transfer. Despite early reports to the contrary, Paul hasn't made the payment yet, according to POLITICO.

That aspect of the deal has drawn some criticism. Outside the Beltway's Doug Mataconis accuses Paul of essentially "buying himself a caucus":

It's hard not to walk away from this with anything other than the impression that Paul is buying a method to get himself around a law that would otherwise bar him from running for President while also running for what most every observer believes would be a safe bid for his party's nominate for Senate. Other than the purpose of allowing Paul to get round the law, there doesn't seem to be any other logical reason for the Kentucky Republican Party to agree to a caucus rather than a primary. …

In essence, Rand Paul bought a caucus so that he continue what seems like an increasingly quixotic Presidential bid notwithstanding the fact that caucuses are undemocratic, unfair, and end up being unrepresentative. The Kentucky GOP gets absolutely no benefit out of this other than the fact that it won't have to pay for it. Given the fact that Paul's campaign doesn't seem to be going anywhere, it all seems to be incredibly pointless. Well, perhaps that's unfair. The obvious point of this was to allow Paul to continue running for President, so I guess it succeeded in that respect. Exactly what it does for the voters of Kentucky, though, I have no idea.

I can only surmise that the state party's executive committee believed aiding Paul's presidential run was important enough to override those concerns.  The better option, of course, would have been for the state legislature to amend the silly law that prevents Paul from seeking both offices, but the Democrat-controlled state House was never going to let that happen. That Paul is in a bit of an awkward spot because his Senate re-election year happens to fall in 2016 is not his fault, and it has little to do with the state of his campaign.

Paul's actually not even on the 2016 trail at the moment. While many of his rivals are mingling with influential Iowa caucus voters, Paul is spending August in Haiti, saving impoverished people from blindness. Whether that ultimately costs him support in Iowa remains to be seen, although it's hard not to admire Paul for dedicating so much of his time to such a good cause.

For more on the libertarian-leaning senator's quest for the White House, read Brian Doherty's latest report, "Rand Paul Backers Still Believe He Can Stand Out."

NEXT: Can Americans Still Take A Joke? Amy Poehler's 'Difficult People' Proves Answer is 'No'

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. But what is the impact on Trump’s candidacy by this move in Kenticky. #OnlyThingThatMatters

  2. More, Sing along with Mitch.
    What if he is elected both president AND senator.
    Repeal the 17th amendment!

    1. Hitler?

      Wait, you didn’t ask a question. Sorry.

      1. You know……
        Ah, the hell with it.

    2. tz,

      He, like several other of the 16 or 17 Repub hopefuls are incredible long shots, with Trump upending Rand’s strength as well as Walker’s, Rubio’s and Jeb’s. The others can pretend to be fellow “Alien Nation” fans with Trump, and pepper “Anchor Baby” in their conversations to try to compete for the rubes. Rand finds this almost impossible, being intellectually hobbled by his honestly held early free market, very free if not invisible border ideas. I say that not to make fun-I understand and approve of the ideals of that quasi-border idea.

      That, and an aggressive military attitude with the Repub primary brand of rube was always going to be a risk and challenge for Rand. Rand wants to pull back, and his peaceful, reasoned ideas sum up as “let them do whatever it is they want to do-Geez, already!” Trump easily rephrases this with a simplistic, but highly effective with primary crowds equating of Rand’s reluctance to make real threats to Obama’s. So, this caucus thing was very much a pay to play thing for Rand. He’s hungry to make it to the big chair, but is realistic enough to know he wants to hold on to a hard to get Senate incumbency.

  3. I kinda agree that it looks, oh what’s the word? Elitist, maybe? I mean, it you or have a problem with the law, tough. But if a senator has a problem, well let’s find a way around it for him.
    I’m kinda the disappoint in Mr. Paul, although I want him to be able to run for both offices at once, still, you know? It kinda fails the integrity test.

    1. if the law had any relationship to ethics or integrity I would agree. since it is merely a beauracraric bunch of palaver I do not agree

      1. So obedience to any law is subjective to one’s view of it’s relationship to ethics or integrity? The only “integrity” I see is that he is hedging his bet because he’s not sure he will win the nomination for president. He’s showing to be more of a politician who wants to stay in power than one who wants to do what is right before the american people and be willing to risk it all to do so.

        1. So obedience to any law is subjective to one’s view of it’s relationship to ethics or integrity?

          Yes. I speed when there aren’t any other cars around. I don’t come to a complete stop at every stop sign. I don’t smoke marijuana, but I wouldn’t feel unethical if I did.

      2. So obedience to any law is subjective to one’s view of it’s relationship to ethics or integrity? The only “integrity” I see is that he is hedging his bet because he’s not sure he will win the nomination for president. He’s showing to be more of a politician who wants to stay in power than one who wants to do what is right before the american people and be willing to risk it all to do so.

    2. Think of it as jury nullification on the state level. The law is stupid (why should a senator who’s reelection is up in the same year as the presidential election be at a disadvantage to a senator who’s reelection is up during midterms?), and the democrats in office wouldn’t consider changing the stupid law because it would benefit a republican. Other politicians do not have to voluntarily vacate their seats to run for president, but this law would require Paul to do just that. It’s a creative workaround, sure, which can come across as skeevy, granted. But it’s not to gain an unfair advantage, it’s to combat an arbitrary disadvantage.

      1. (why should a senator who’s reelection is up in the same year as the presidential election be at a disadvantage to a senator who’s reelection is up during midterms?)

        Due to the 6-year term, every senator alternates between the two types of elections. Rand Paul benefitted greatly from the low turnout typical of midterms in 2010, where ideological true believers can swing elections to inexperienced, unpolished, and disorganized candidates who would be dead meat in presidential years. So it’s disingenuous for him to boo-hoo about the inconvenience of having to run in a presidential year, now that he has the advantages of incumbency.

        1. The only polished candidate Rand ran against in 2010 was the Mitch picked primary opponent.

          I dont think the lack of a presidential primary the same day affected anything.

          And considering the slaughters Ibama has received here, the Dems best chance was in an off year. They win the Governorship in off years.

        2. That isn’t even an argument.

          1. Are you smelling tulpa?

          2. Mitch McConnell couldn’t run for president in 2008 and won’t be able to in 2020 under the same law. It’s not giving anybody an unfair advantage.

            1. It’s giving people an unfair advantage in some years and an unfair disadvantage in other years.

        3. You’re performing a political analysis and not a forming a logical argument for or against the KY law or the Senator’s response.

          1. I stated that the law is not unfair. It may be stupid, but it is not unfair as every senator alternates between midterm and presidential years for reelection. It was presumably passed in an attempt to keep someone from running for every office on the ticket in the hopes of winning one of them. An exception for the case of a state office vs. federal office would be palatable. You would have to make sure it didn’t only apply to incumbents though.

          2. There’s also a case to be made that a senator’s first concern should be catering to the people of the state he/she represents, not pursuing presidential ambitions. Many other states have similar laws requiring a candidate to pick one or the other. For example, John Edwards had to pick one in 2004 under NC law.

            1. So does Rubio in Florida.

              1. Good catch.

                Amazing how Reason wasn’t whining about Rubio being forced to make the same decision.

                1. He’s not a libertarian so why the fuck would we care?

                  Tulpa go home.

    3. It’s doubtful his campaign is even going to survive until the KY caucus in March.

      1. Well, when Donny implodes there’s going to be a lot of maneuvering. Jeb’s been a bit of a wet sandwich, so there might be room for a pipsqueak like Paul to win some supporters over.

        1. Trump’s current supporters are not going to switch to supporting Paul… and the people he could scavenge supporters from (Cruz, Walker) are in better shape than he is. He wouldn’t even be allowed into the next debate without CNN using bizarre metrics to exude The Carly.

          1. Trump’s early supporters aren’t any indication of the eventual primary turnout. Not by a long shot.

          2. “exude The Carly.”

            That’s an awesome mental picture!

            1. Like Athena bursting forth from Jake Trapper’s skull!

    4. If there’s anyone to blame for the appearance of impropriety, it’s the KY GOP for having insisted on the payment in the first place. As far as I can tell there’s nothing morally or ethically dubious about complying with the law as written in such a way that doesn’t allow the law to screw Paul over.

      1. Switching to a caucus appears to be the only way to thread that needle, and it costs $500K. I don’t know about you, but to me that’s a lot of money.

  4. Saving blind people in Haiti is another cynical ploy by Paul to bolster his campaign, just like his pro-terrorist NSA-bashing fakibuster /MSM

    1. It’s false flags all the way down!

  5. Rand Mother Fuckin’ Paul!

  6. notwithstanding the fact that caucuses are undemocratic, unfair, and end up being unrepresentative.

    I fail to see the problem here. Plus, based on his Twitter feed Mataconis considers people from states like Kentucky to be illiterate, backward, incest-practicing, racist yokels so his faux concern for their disenfranchisement rings hollow.

    1. Caucuses are a blight on our democracy, well except for the ones in 2008 that propelled BO to the nomination.

  7. Can you trust a person that has a both a first name for a last name and a last name for a first name?

    1. Certainly not. But Donald Trump is a pillar of integrity.

    2. I’ve always assumed that the Pauls have been secretly vying for the Silver Age Comic Book Characters vote.

  8. Paul is spending August in Haiti, saving impoverished people from blindness.

    Maybe that’s something Paul should be doing rather than playing football Peanuts-style with Congress playing the part of Lucy. In the increasingly unfathomable event he even wins the privilege.

  9. I love Rand Paul.

    The fucking tail on his ass filled with dragons and mice. I get that.

    I still love Rand Paul.

    And if you hate me for this I have a really nice fat veiny fat cock I can shove down your throat you miserable unthinking worthless nematode… I am fucked up, doing rich cocaine, and rocket lagers, but I still don’t care…
    Rand Paul is the best shit on the field because this Jesus loving bro hangs with brains and science and
    shit that makes a great nation…..namely fucking with the establishment always…

    when Trump decides to do this only to plump his little cock. Can someone show me when TRUMP stood in front of the FUCKING law of the land and dissed it? not. Never.

    Trump is a motherfucking bitch

  10. Trump is a shitty billionaire who fucked the asses of politicians with his greasy cock
    Trump fucks politicians for a liftetime of dollars
    and NOW wants to be fucked?

    Um, any bdsm shop and bedroom is going what? The dude has lost his mind… like Biden.

    WHY THE FUCK Biden OR Trump..?

    a dude who is vice prez who is deciding at the last minute or a dude who is super rich and tripping on tons of love? This is Don Trump, he got his love by the thousands…. Maybe the crowd candidate? an adored and lifted man who didn’t get this off his steel towers and super golf parks?
    kinda telling, a great man I love but enjoys his success on the altars of thousands?
    Find your love, Donald, and pass away, love.

    you cannot save us, dear.
    And neither can an afterthought like Biden,

  11. I just want my head killed with frank sinatras cum
    I want frank sinatras cum in my throat and blasted into my brain and arms
    I think frank sinatra should kill me with his cum in my entire body?

    is this unreasonable?

    1. It appears this already happened and your head just doesn’t know it yet.

  12. Quite a quandry for him. Personally, I lean towards upholding the Kentucky law & wished it applied to all pols. Why? They’re all a bunch of bastards.

    1. What is this thing called Ky law?

      1. The KY law allows you to slip through otherwise close loopholes.

    2. I fucking hate this shit… your fucking shit has to understand that people here FUCKING hang who don’t live in your shitty state – jesus FUCKING CHRIST… Seriously I hate ‘her chip shot’ becuase THAT fuck POSTED in perpuity which means you posted a FUCKING open end on a dude///

      POST the FUCKING LAW you fucking whore AS you post YOUR dumbass shit and maybe shit won’t send your type into the dumper of fuckwads.

    3. Post your motherfucking KENTUCKY LAW YOU DUMB FUK

      1. 118.405 Name of candidate to appear on ballot but once — Exceptions for filling of vacancy.
        No candidate’s name shall appear on any voting machine or absentee ballot more than once, except that a candidate’s name may appear twice if he is a candidate for a primary or a regular election and also a candidate to fill a vacancy in the same office required to be filled at a special election, when the special election to fill a vacancy is scheduled for the regular election day.

        Good catch, AC. Everybody says the law excludes him from running for two offices – but since he is not technically running for office but for the GOP nomination to run for office, he’s not running for two offices, he’s running for zero offices in the primary. So what’s the big deal? The big deal is that the law doesn’t say he can’t run for two offices, it just says his name can’t be on the ballot for two offices.

        1. Jerryskids is playing the libertarian poltergeist…
          man I am fucked up and and I am riding rainbow and I hope to wine a new lover but why would you FUCK with lovers of life and the open space and ufo’s and the greatest space ports man ” ..If you want a port for your spaceship called jerryskids I will fucking make that happen If I have to suck the cocks of all the boys making space ports happen.. man..

          so you show up here acting like horrible fuck and expecting that all these alien fuckng will kick your ufo assout….
          so.. fuck you…

          rest your ship on the landings…. and go in peace, jerryskids….

        2. Primary elections are elections for office. The law explicitly provides an exception for certain primary election situations (not this one) so it’s clearly intended to apply to them as well.

          1. Primary elections are elections for office.

            No, no they are not. The winner of the primary elections gains no public office.

            1. The winner of a presidential election in a state doesn’t necessarily gain office either.

              1. But they are running for an office. A primary candidate is not; they are are, rather, running for the “privilege” of running for office. Now piss off, Tulpa.

    4. Post your motherfucking KENTUCKY LAW YOU DUMB FUK

    5. I am fucked up but please keep in mind that i remember every single FUCKING name of every motherfucker that posts here….and if you post shit it doesn’t matter what I do in my nose, mouth, or brain I can remember.

      1. TAKE IT DOWN A NOTCH. You’ll get us thrown out.

      2. Who is this idiot and why are they allowed to pollute the discussion with this nonsense?

          1. New or Sock? We report, you decide.

        1. Read him more. Read him more closely. He’s the most profound philosopher I’ve run into in…well, ever.

  13. I’ll chip in 20 bucks. I think there are way too many barriers to entry for candidates at all levels. It’s one of the ways the D’s and R’s perpetuate the two party system of crap candidates.

  14. Well, there has to be rules and regulations, glibertarians. Else, you’d all grow your hair long, take dope, and vote for right wing extemists.

  15. Rand Paul is not libertarian. He is a pro femaleslavery, pro government body hijacking, pro government interference in private medical decisions, pro government in your-uterus (or your wife’s or daughter’s uterus) right-to-lifer.

    1. So, please do tell, who is the better presidential candidate, and why?

      1. MYTHICAL PURIST LIBERTARIAN MAN, of course.

        We must sit passively by and never vote for anyone until the Kwisatz Haderach arrives and the prophecy is fulfilled

      2. Being the shiniest turd in the pile is hardly a ringing endorsement.

        1. What that has to do with Rand I do not know. But hey your EDGY purist cred has been maintained, and that’s what really counts right?

    2. Intelligent Mr Toad|8.22.15 @ 11:55PM|#
      “Rand Paul is not libertarian. He is a pro femaleslavery, pro government body hijacking, pro government interference in private medical decisions, pro government in your-uterus (or your wife’s or daughter’s uterus) right-to-lifer.”
      Maybe I missed it.
      Do you have evidence of him promoting laws which support those views, or simply that he holds those views?
      There is a difference.

    3. Gary Johnson supports a ban in the third trimester. Guess you’ll be staying home in 2016 then?

  16. Rand Paul has made it clear that he is not his father and he is not libertarian. His libertarianish leanings may make him far and away the least-worst option for Libertarians, but you’re setting yourself up for a big disappointment if you believe he really is a closet libertarian who’s just saying he’s not because he thinks that will help him in the polls. If he gets elected, he is not going to be ripping off his suit the moment he’s sworn in to reveal the outfit underneath with the cape and the big ‘L’ on his chest and exclaim, “Ha ha, suckers! I really was a libertarian all along and now I’m off to the Oval Office to sign a bunch of executive orders outlawing most of the government, ordering the Pentagon to nuke the IRS and the CDC to infect the EPA with the AIDS virus and the Forestry Service to unleash wild bears on OSHA. Then it’s ass sex with a stoned Mexican!” This is a pretty slick-politician move like every other slick politician. (I’m too lazy to check the Kentucky law but if it’s like some of the others, it doesn’t actually prevent Paul from running for both offices, it just says he can’t be on the ballot in Kentucky for both offices. He can run for President in the other 49 states, just not in Kentucky.)

    1. That being said – both the major parties are still private organizations for certain purposes, so why the hell is there a state law governing who the GOP can have on their ballot and couldn’t the GOP get a lawsuit going over that? But if they are a private organization, why the hell is the state picking up the tab for their election? Last week we had a vote at the office as to what we wanted for lunch and the state didn’t open up a church basement and have little old ladies hand out any of those goddamn free “I Voted!” stickers for us! That’s hardly fair, is it?

      1. so this slippery wand of dead fishies shows up and slaps a million aliens and j skids and yea so my eyebrows are nows drups with this shit like a drup drupping drup thang bitch and all the drupping shits adn….
        so all this shit drups…….. and yo, drups of the J kids. peace out, drups and draps.

        I love this drup fuck… with the reality of being not fucked up on tons of drugs mayhaps? Pr n ptnpt

    2. well this is a sweet finish of a jerry dick pulling from streaming lines from the kids….
      but I get the pragmatic catfish lines on the fingers for sure..

    3. This arrangement of lines has been created very cleverly/
      it is too thick to be trusted… too thick means multiple authors…

    4. Rand’s voting record is clearly libertarian.

    5. Rand Paul has made it clear that he is not his father and he is not libertarian. His libertarianish leanings may make him far and away the least-worst option for Libertarians, but you’re setting yourself up for a big disappointment if you believe he really is a closet libertarian who’s just saying he’s not because he thinks that will help him in the polls.

      Disagree.

      If you want to know what’s truly in a man’s heart, listen to the things he said before his campaign began.

      No foreign aid to Israel…repeal the CRA…

      Rand is as libertarian as I am. He’s simply smart enough not to show it to stupid Republicans.

    6. Rand not being his father’s son is not a bad thing. He won’t inherit Dad’s insane, evil foreign policy views. Or his creepy penchant for having his name attached to racist nonsense, or running his campaign as a cash-dispensary for the family and associated cronies. He might even actually go far enough to make a real positive difference!

  17. OT: does anyone else think the new Avengers movie this year sucked?

    most of the way through it and the hopes for improvement are low.

    Plot =

    – Tony Stark to Bruce Banner: “ay yo, let’s make a robot?” “sweet dood lets do it”
    – “Oh no our robot is James Spader and he wants to blow up the planet what do we dooooooooo.”
    – Scarlett Johansen = “uhm, what? not paying attention because I’m a girl and hulk is HAWT”
    – Jeremy Renner = “I wish i had been a farmer”
    – Samuel Jackson = “CAMEEEEEOOO bitches! Why? I have a contract to be in the motherfucking movie is why.”
    – Captain America = “[Insert canned “inspiring speech” here]”
    – Hulk = WANT SMASH, but need therapy i think

    1. I think Gil is a delicious boy a loverly little sharky bomb
      I think little gil is a sweet bot

      I broke a nickle with my arm
      and the machine cried
      but I patted it and hugged it old
      arms and i looked into the sun
      while i held the machine
      in my arms while the
      rainbows sang a lost resignation
      but I did not let go of the old boy
      machine it bowed down on me
      and this is sentences is for real
      going torch… i am following it for real
      this is real time right now
      on time the machine is heavy on my
      elbows and it has disco pm
      on its shit and this sounds doesn’t know I did
      lines of coke and valium and tons of bottles of
      dragon milk under the up wings of shit and
      when…
      dude i felt arms of a female machine man
      dude I am trupping but I FELT the girl computer
      feeling me and looking into my face like a
      real girl . I FELT and SAW that and I been
      married to HOT milf for 22 years and she is
      fucking my chicago boy but a digitial angel shlammed up
      into this modern crux and my lsd is cool but I saw
      a digital ghost….

      fuck me… I saw her… for real.. a FUCKING digital ghost.

    2. marvel is a dump tank of shit that is horrible because marvel sucks shit poops and that fucking old shit that runs the place was a once god and still forever is but all his shit suck now because his shit is run by really fucking stupid fucks who’ve learned NOT a SINGLE FUCKING THING about how to make great movies.
      AntMAn is kinda great because the Hollywood cabal got lucky.

      All the other shit those fucks create is SHIT. WORTHLESS DIARRHEA.

      An ass shitting a ton of cows is Hollywood. and Like Washington DC- the lobbyist show up like little girls in shiny dresses…

      All along the boulevards all the lobbyists demand a voice in the next great billion dollar movie- the FOP/ the feminists/the evangelicals/ the military/ and the tons of other voices
      ….
      not a single move released in America can exist with a PURE director vision…
      all motherfucking movies have lobbyists writhing all over that shit….

      I would like for Hollywood to be Hollywood BUT Hollywood is gone- it is vapid and lost to the streams of lobbies and etf’s…and big pushers…

      1. Marvel is better than DC. FACT

        1. all lines that revel in cocaine powers and exorcism are better, lovelie Cyto
          in fact, I see, Cyto. as a nasty villain fuck whore.. mahperchoozalia

    3. Your opinion is wrong. The new Avengers movie is alright, just not as good as the first one or CA: Winter Soldier.

    4. It’s pretty bad. Some enjoyable moments, but mostly boring and looong. But I sneaked into it after paying to see Mad Max a second time, so I try not to complain.

    5. I remember when the first Avengers came out Drudge had a headline along the lines of “They did it!” suggesting the movie was great.
      I watched it when it came to DVD, and I remember thing of the headline and that it was dead wrong. I thought the movie was weak.

      I ran across a ranking of the MCU universe movies a few weeks ago and it reminded that overall the MCU movies have been weak, action fare. The Captain Americas stand out and the first Iron Man, but nothing else

      1. How the hell was the first Avengers weak? Also, Guardians of the Galaxy was excellent. The Thor movies were okay and so was the second Hulk movie.

  18. OT:
    “Americans who thwarted train attack praised for ‘exceptional courage'”
    http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/22/…..index.html
    That’s the CNN feed; pick your fave.
    Now, can someone tell me why that guy is still alive? If someone cut me with a boxcutter and I thereafter gained the upper hand, there is no way that human breathes another breath.
    Beat him unconscious? Only a start!

    1. It is very difficult to beat a human to death with your fingers, sevo. Has my lovery boy ever fought in the alleyways? I have many times in the streets where even there it is hard to kill outside of metal shoved into neck or heart..

      1. Not if you know where to hit. I certainly hope our military is trained in both how to kill and how not to kill in hand-to-hand combat.

        1. What an odd respin….

          1. I don’t know what you mean by “odd” or “respin”. You claimed that it was difficult to kill a human with your bare hands, and I’m saying that’s false. Experience as a street thug is hardly evidence, since street thugs, as a rule, aren’t professionally trained to kill. I certainly expect our soldiers to be good at this; it’s their job.

            1. As the instructors were quick to remind us every single time we did unarmed combat training – you are only learning enough to get your ass kicked in a bar fight while you are home on leave. Soldiers/Airmen/Sailors/Marines are not ninjas.

    2. That was some exceptional example of human cooperation in a life and death situation. Very good to see. A ray of goodness of individual effort.

    3. I haven’t figured out why, once they had the upper hand, they needed to “beat him unconscious” either.

      At that juncture, one points either the handgun or the AK47 – or both since there were three good guys involved – he is purported to have had at his face and says, “give up or die”. He either submits and is hog tied for the moment or, ends up with his brains splattered all over the car.

      And, considering all of the factors about his background presented in the wire story, I suspect it would have been the later.

      I don’t support the death penalty. But I have no problem with poetic justice.

  19. i kind of hate the world right now and I really want nothing to do with it and maybe I will never ever love being here again- except I do love my sweet golden rockets so much like a lovely river forever
    I love my reason men. super kings and the rare queen but agile needs to trip off forever songs

  20. Why not take it at face value? The Kentucky GOP likes the idea of him running for both offices, they make the necessary changes, and they have some costs that they need someone to pay for. I really don’t see what kind of impropriety anyone sees in that.

    Of course, they wouldn’t do this for a candidate they didn’t like, so an allegation of improper favoritism or corruptions is bogus.

    1. Who is him?

  21. Trump mashing in so strong is very very strange…
    Super very strange… like a billion dollar strange/

  22. My view in the writers of reason? and my paid subsription and fuck my open trips here…
    or maybe not….

    WHY is trump rising? WHY? Does a billionaire rise? CHeck his tendrils…

    Trump is SHIT for America….

  23. Trump is very strange shit things going on fer ‘Merica…
    very strange shit indeed..

    1. Trump appeals to the politically incorrect who’ve been silenced by the PC crowd for so long.

      And, there is no close alternative.

      Many posters here speak freely because, except for the latest federal issue, it is an anonymous forum. But do they do the same in class, at work or at family gatherings?

      When Trump says fearlessly (or fecklessly perhaps) out loud what many think but have had to hold back for fear of retribution, there is a natural appeal to them.

      Hell, there may be hope for this country yet. Even if it takes as twisted a path as national support of “the Donald”. Maybe there will be free speech without the fear we’ve come to quietly accept in our daily lives.

      1. We already have free speech. Criticism is not coercion, and if you’re afraid of it then that’s your free choice.

        When Trump says fearlessly (or fecklessly perhaps) out loud what many think

        If that’s true, then many are raging assholes. Hard to paint Trump as fearless when he whines about a questioner being mean to him by asking hard questions.

      2. Trump appeals to the politically incorrect who’ve been silenced by the PC crowd for so long.

        Right, so half the GOP-ish is working on as many FEELZ as the SJWs. Bunch of crybabies.

        1. Ayn’s rolling in her grave at how many folks paying her homage are for this crybaby.

        2. Trump should’ve been called out for throwing a hissy fit because a girl asked him a softball question he didn’t like. My children are more mature than Trump.

      3. You think people have been ‘silenced’ by the ‘PC’ crowd? Please tell me you’re kidding.

  24. Trump dump lump bump chump. Not the question, nor the answer. Except to maybe a trivia question.

  25. Re: Rand in Haiti:

    “I wouldn’t let a guy who has to start his own certification board touch my eyes, and I’m not sure why we let him inflict himself on the poor people of Haiti. Is anyone overseeing his work and its outcomes?”

    1. Kind of reminds me of the argument that Chinese factories are not as cushy as we’d like them, so we’re going to boycott their goods. Never mind that the workers would then have to go back to work in a rice paddy…

      1. Yeah, it was a comment from a guy who apparently shares 30 or so Occupy Democrats facebook memes a day so…

        These people are so angry.

  26. Is it too much to ask that Reason put a link to the law in question in their story?

  27. lol, US POlitics, best politics money can buy!

    http://www.Total-Privacy.tk

    1. If this is the best then obviously we need more money.

    2. Everyone loves to say that it politicians are bought and paid for by special interests. But only the “other guys”.

      People need to be a bit more introspective. If it is money that “buys” an election, then how is it that extremely rich folks can finance their own campaigns and still not get elected? We’ve had a few of those in CA over the years.

      More importantly, why is it always “the other guy”? We all contribute to campaigns whether we like it or not. Even if you don’t give directly to a politician or political cause. What organizations do you contribute to and who do they in turn support? What organizations, are you a member of and how much do they donate to and what political causes/activities?

      1. If it is money that “buys” an election, then how is it that extremely rich folks can finance their own campaigns and still not get elected?

        Money is necessary to win elections, not sufficient. You have to be smart in how you deploy it.

        Look at Hildog’s campaign right now — she’s only survived because the up-and-comers in the Dem party are deterred by the prospect of a $2 billion smear campaign launched against them. So her only opposition is a senile socialist and a couple of nobodies.

        For the opposite example, look at Ron Paul’s presidential campaigns — where all that money went is a giant mystery. (well beyond Ron giving his entire family cushy campaign jobs with free vacations labeled as “campaign travel”)

      2. Putting things into perspective, Americans spend more each year on Halloween costumes than they did on the 2012 presidential race. One certainly gives more immediate pleasure but the other’s outcome can affect one’s life forever.

        1. the other’s outcome can affect one’s life forever.

          Someday I’ll tell you the story of the year I dressed up as Jar Jar Binks.

        2. …Americans spend more each year on Halloween costumes than they did on the 2012 presidential race.

          So, what you’re saying is that a smart candidate’s SuperPAC could invest in Sexy Lady costumes for their pollsters and workers and garner the attention needed to possibly turn the tide in voter attention?

    3. Money equals speech!

      1. Are you going for self-parody now?

      2. Year, but it doesn’t get you votes.

    4. Actually, if there is any problem with US democracy, it’s probably that it is too majoritarian, not that it is too corrupt.

      If you want to see utterly corrupt democracies, look to Europe. There isn’t much money in corruption in Europe because it’s so plentiful: a nearly unlimited supply leads to low prices.

  28. It’s unlikely that Kentucky’s delegates would be the difference between winning the nomination and losing. And as it stands, Paul’s campaign would be incredibly lucky just to survive to the March caucus, let alone the original May primary date. So he shouldn’t pay the money and should just plan not to run in the Kentucky presidential primary.

    How embarrassing would it be if Paul payed $250K for a caucus that happened after he dropped out of the race?

    1. So his campaign would be paying half the cost of a caucus that he was not to be considered at. Why is that embarrassing? The caucus would still function. It would take a little load off taxpayers (albeit very little if the state still held primaries for other offices). And the major parties would wind up with a more deliberative process in selecting their delegates to the national convention (and possibly electing people to local or state party offices if that business also takes place in the caucus). Magnanimous, maybe, but not embarrassing.

  29. Ah, the GOP. First it was money equals speech, and now it’s money equals electoral rules. Sadly for Paul, the latter will now benefit him, but the former will doom him.

    1. “the former will doom him.”

      Citation missing.

      1. “The former will doom him.”

        -Me

        1. Oh wow what a convincing source. Not.

          1. Yeah, well, I always convince me, cyto.

    2. These are not “electoral rules”, they are the rules by which a private organization, the Kentucky GOP, selects its own candidates. If you are not a member of the Kentucky GOP, how they select their candidates is none of your concern.

      1. And you would be wrong, win. Kentucky law says “no candidate’s name shall appear on any voting machine or absentee ballot more than once.” So you see, it was the law of the state for both parties, not just the GOP.

        And here is what the GOP did, just because they can…switch to a caucus because the dates would be different. And all to benefit one person, and only one person (they would win the Senate seat even if Paul did not run).

        And here is the rub…they’ll only do it If Paul ponies up $500k. So the caucus arrives, the electoral process changes, but only by money changing hands. And it will be a one time deal.

        1. Then the problem is the KY law, not the money changing hands.

          1. So, you don’t like a law and you buy your way out of it? Money equals speech indeed!

            1. That just demonstrates that we need more money in politics to circumvent bad laws.

              1. Ah, silly me.

      2. These are not “electoral rules”, they are the rules by which a private organization, the Kentucky GOP, selects its own candidates. If you are not a member of the Kentucky GOP, how they select their candidates is none of your concern.

        I think that one of the parties in one of states should just go full “Laboratory of Democracy” and switch from a Primary orCaucus to instead having each campaign choose a local ‘champion’ and have them fight it out in the octagon or something on a PPV tournament.

        Have Nevada do it. That sounds delightfully Vegas.

  30. One side effect of this law is that it makes it unlikely for Paul to be picked as a vice presidential candidate this year. John Edwards had to give up his senate seat under similar conditions in 2004 due to NC law.

  31. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.online-jobs9.com

  32. Am I the only one who thinks the GOP’s just throwing another obstacle in his path and trying to get $250k out of him to boot? Fucking protection racket.

    “No tickey, no wash. This is what you get for trying to bust our union, motherfucking Rand.”

    I think it’s awesome he’s in Haiti helping the poor. But it does make me wonder: Why not do it here? /slight misgiving

    1. IIRC he does help Americans, too. The Haiti business is basically “no, he really likes black people!” signalling.

      1. He’s been going to Haiti to do that for a long time. I don’t think it’s signalling, but I’ve been known to wear rose-colored glasses.

        I’ve recently come to the conclusion that I don’t really care about someone’s thoughts/feelings/emotions/motives for doing X thing. I care that the end result is what I also want. The rest can be sorted out/fought over lately. This way of thinking helps me avoid unnecessary stress.

        So, I don’t really care if it’s signalling and it won’t work anyway, not with both the GOP and the MSM actively trying to suppress him. After all, Romney took a truck full of supplies to NY/NJ after Sandy while Christie just dropped on his knees and gave Obama a blow job on national television. Two days before the election. Which got more press?

        1. The rest can be sorted out/fought over lately.

          *later

        2. Well, you’re right there but it won’t stop him from trying.

        3. As far as intentions go, I’ve found that wondering about them gets more important the more vague the politico is being. I mean, both Rand, and, say, Arizona’s Sheriff Joe both say they stand for liberty and small government but they’re likely to mean wildly different things by that.

  33. How/why are caucuses undemocratic, unfair, or unrepresentative?

    1. Caucuses are basically Athenian democracy. All democracy is “unfair” so that’s a meaningless critique. As to being unrepresentative, that carries some merit, but then the question becomes, who is supposed to be “represented” in a primary election, anyway?

      1. Caucuses or primaries aren’t “democracy” at all, they are self-governance of a private organization; that private organization happens to send a candidate into a public election.

    2. They are “undemocratic, unfair, and unrepresentative” according to people who believe that democracy is synonymous with majoritarianism and mob rule in all issues.

      Of course, the charge is particularly silly in this case, since selecting a political candidate representing a party simply isn’t a voter issue. That is, the goal of such a selection isn’t to select the candidate that the most people in the party like, but to select the candidate that represents the best compromise between winning the general election and representing the party positions. That selection isn’t a democratic issue at all, it’s a simple management decision.

    3. Maybe that’s a bit overstatement, but the fairness part comes in the fact that a caucus demands a physical presence for a period of time that most people see as an obstruction and too time consuming. So caucus participation is much lower than primaries or elections.

      1. People being lazy /= unfair.

        1. That might be a true statement. But I’m just telling him most people view them as unfair. This article used surveys to show what most people think of caucuses.

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..nventions/

          1. Jackand Ass-

            FTA believing that more extreme candidates are more likely to come from a caucus rather than a primary.

            Remind me who won all the Dem caucuses in 2008.

            1. Did I say Dems didn’t run in caucuses? Was I defending Democrats? Stop being a defensive GOP hack.

              1. I haven’t voted GOP since 1984- who did you vote for in 2008?

  34. Curing people of blindness in Hati? That’s kinda close to Mexico. Watch out, Trump is going to go after him for that.

  35. You’ve got to pay the troll toll if you want to get into that boy’s hole.

  36. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go? to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,

    http://www.homejobs90.com

  37. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.online-jobs9.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.